翻译资格考试

导航

2017年catti三级笔译模拟试题:医疗改革

来源 :中华考试网 2017-10-17

2017年catti三级笔译模拟试题:医疗改革

  【英译汉】

  Healthcare Reform

  During the past two decades, all of the industrialized nations have enacted some form of healthcare reform. America is no exception. Just a few years ago, the U. S. was consumed by a vigorous public debate about healthcare. 1 In the end, the debate reaffirmed that the U. S. would retain its essentially market-based system. 2 Instead of reform imposed from the top down. 3 the American healthcare system underwent some rather profound self-reform, driven by powerful market forces. The market - not the government - managed to wring inflation out of the private healthcare market. 4 Today, it appears that U. S. healthcare costs are again on the rise. At the same time, American patients - like patients elsewhere - are becoming more vocal 5 about the restrictions many face in their healthcare plans. Talk of government-led reform is once again in the air. 6 We must think twice, though, before embarking on "reform" if that means imposing further restrictions on our healthcare markets. The more sensible course is to introduce policies that make the market work better - that is, to the advantage of consumers. 7 I base this argument on our company's decades of experience in healthcare systems around the world, which has given us a unique global perspective on the right and wrong way to reform healthcare. 8 The wrong way is to impose layer after layer of regulation and restrictions. We have seen this approach tried in many countries, and we have always see it fail - fail to hold down costs, and fail to provide the best quality care. Medicine is changing at so rapid a pace that no government agency or expert commission can keep up with it. Only an open, informed and competitive market can do that.

  This lesson holds true for the U. S. and for all countries contemplating healthcare reform. Free markets do what governments mean to do - but can't.

  The right approach 10 is to foster a flexible, market-based system in which consumers have rights, responsibilities, and choices. Healthcare systems do not work if patients are treated as passive recipients of services: 11 they do work if consumers are well-informed about quality, costs, and new treatments, and are free to act responsibly on that knowledge. 12 Of course, reform should never be driven purely by cost considerations. Instead, we ought to devise new ways of funding healthcare that will make it possible for all patients to afford the best care. Ideally, these new approaches would not only reward individuals and families but also encourage innovation, which can make healthcare systems more efficient, more productive, and ultimately of greater value for patients.

  The path we choose will have enormous implications for all of us. We are in a golden age of science, and no field of scientific inquiry holds more promise than that of biomedicine. 13 Not only can we look forward to the discovery of cures for chronic and acute disease, but also to the development of enabling therapies that can help people enjoy more rewarding and productive lives. 14 New drugs are already helping people who would once have been disabled by arthritis or cardiovascular disease stay active and mobile. 15 More effective anti-depressants and anti-psychotics are beginning to relieve the crippling illness of the mind, allowing sufferers to function normally and happily in society. The promise is quite simply - one of longer, healthier lives. 16 What is at issue are the pace and breadth of discovery, and how quickly we can make the benefits of our knowledge available to the patients who need them.

  Therefore, the policy environment the biomedical industry will face in the next century may make or break the next wave of biomedical breakthroughs. 17 Will that environment include protection for intellectual property, freedom for the market to determine price, and support for a robust science base? 18 Will healthcare systems nurture innovation, or remove incentives for discovery? Will they give consumers information and options, or impose stringent rules and regulations that limit access and choice? For the U. S., as for the rest of the world, the healthcare debate is by no means over. And for all of us, the stakes are higher than ever.

  词汇

  1.enact实施

  2.reaffirm重新确认

  3.self-reform自我变革

  4.on the rise呈上涨趋势

  5.think twice三思而后行

  6.embark on开始,着手

  7.expert commission专家委员会

  8.contemplate打算,盘算

  9.chronic and acute diseases急、慢性病

  10.arthritis关节炎

  11.cardiovascular disease心血管疾病

  12.anti-depressant抗抑郁药物

  13.anti-psychotic抗精神病药

  14.at issue争议(或讨论中的),有分歧的

  15.intellectual property知识产权

  16.stringent严格的,严厉的

  注释

  1.consume -词的本意为“消耗、耗尽、吞噬”,用作被动语态时常常转义为“使着迷、全神贯注”,这里指医疗改革问题吸引了美国全国上下的关注。可考虑译为“(美国)掀起了……”。

  2.从retain -调我们可以看出,美国在这场辩论发生之前实施的就是market-based system。

  因此,翻译此句时可考虑采用增词法加入“原有的……”以使译句所表达的意思更为完整。

  3.reform imposed from the top down指的是从联邦政府到地方的改革,由联邦政府统一制定改革措施,各地方政府参照执行。

  4.原句中的主语部分the market - not the government属于被强调的成分,译文如果要保留这一特点的话,可改变句子的主语,并适当调整语序,以更符合汉语的行文习惯。如:该句可采用“……是市场,而不是政府”的句式,也可采用“……是依靠市场,而不是政府来……”的句式来处理。

  5.vocal-词的原意为“有声的,声音的”,这里意指“人们发出了抗议或抱怨”,所以可译为“怨声载道”。

  6.in the air有“悬而未决”和“在流传中”两种完全不同的意思。要想准确地译出这句话,译者必须把它和上文联系起来看。上文提到,美国的医疗改革是通过市场来推动的,但是目前似乎出了一些问题,因此有人提出疑义,认为是不是应该由政府来领导并推动医疗改革呢?由此我们可以看出,in the air的意思应该是“(某种说法)在流传中”。

  7.to the advantage of consumers的完整表达方式应为to introduce policies to the advantage ofconsumers,翻译时应注意将这一省略部分的意义表达清楚。

  8.这个英语长句中含有一个由which引导的非限制性定语从句。建议译者在处理此句时将主句和从句分开单独译,否则译文会非常欧化,读上去佶屈聱牙,令人费解。

  9.informed -词的原意为“见多识广的、消息灵通的”,主要用于形容人。本句中是用来形容市场的,主要指市场上有关医药发展的信息非常充分且及时。

  10.the right approach出现在段首,翻译这一部分时,译者可考虑将其中隐含的“医疗改革”

  的意思译出,以起到承上启下的作用。

  11.passive recipients of services这个名词短语在句中充当的是介词as的宾语,如果将它直译为“医疗服务的被动接受者”放在句中,会非常拗口。根据英语句子名词用得多,而汉语句子动词用得多的这一特点,建议译者改变这个短语的词性,将它译为动词短语。

  12.本句中的条件从句很长,可考虑一分为二,well-informed about quality,costs,and newTreatments为第一部分,free to act responsibly on that knowledge为第二部分,第二部分动作的发生必须以第一部分动作的发生为前提。只有将这两部分的逻辑关系理清楚之后,整句话的意思才能清楚明了。

  13.no field... holds more practice than...这一句式可采用两种翻译方法。一是顺译法,如:没有哪个科学领域比生物医学更具探索前景了;二是逆译法,如:生物医学是最具探索前景的科学领域了。译者可根据语境及自己的偏好来进行选择。

  14.这句话强调的是生物医学的发展可以给人们带来的好处。cure -词既可表示“药物”,也可以表示“疗法”,但结合下半句中的therapy来看,可将cures译为“药物”,而将therapies译为“疗法”。

  15.在处理这句话之前,译者应该首先对句子的结构进行分析,找到句子的主干及枝蔓。这句话的主干为New drugs are already helping people stay alive and mobile,而其它部分则是修饰people的定语从句。译者翻译时则可以根据这句话的结构将它拆分为两个相应的小句来处理。

  16.要正确处理这句话,对simply -词的理解非常重要。它不是用来修饰promise这个词的,而是应该作为插入语用来修饰整个句子的,可译为“简单地说,……”。

  17.make a wave of breakthroughs指的是“带来新一波的突破”,而break a wave ofbreakthroughs指的是“停止新一波的突破”。整句话的大意应为:是否有新的突破将取决于政策环境的优劣。

  18.这句话共有三个名词短语做include的宾语,如果采用一一对应的方式也将它们译成三个汉语的名词短语的话,会很别扭。因为英语句子动词用的比较少,名词(尤其是抽象名词)用的较多;而汉语则是动词用的较多。建议把原文中的名词短语转换成动词短语,以更符合汉语的行文习惯。

  【参考译文】

  医疗改革

  过去二十年来,所有的工业国都实施过某种形式的医疗改革,美国也不例外。就在几年前,美国掀起了一场轰轰烈烈的关于医疗改革的公众辩论。最终,这场辩论重新确认美国应继续保留原有的基本上以市场为导向的医疗体制。美国的医疗体制未曾进行过自上而下的改革,而是在强大的市场推动下经历了一些深刻的自我变革。私营医疗保健市场的水分,是依靠市扬、而不是政府的作用来挤掉的。

  如今,美国的医疗费用似乎再次呈上涨趋势。与此同时,和其他国家的病患一样,美国的病患对于他们医疗保健计划中所受到的种种限制也越来越怨声载道。让政府来领导医疗改革的话题又一次被提起。

  然而,政府所主导的医疗改革如果仅仅意味着加大对医疗市场的限制的话,那我们可要三思而后行了。其实,更为明智的做法是制定一些对消费者更为有利的政策,改善市场的运作。这个观点是基于我们公司在全球医疗系统中数十年来的经验而提出来的。这些经验给了我们独特的视角,来判断医疗改革中正确和错误的做法。我们认为,强加层层规定和限制的做法是错误的。很多国家都曾经采取过这种改革方式,但这样的改革总是以失败告终:因为它们既没能降低医疗成本,也无法给患者提供优质的治疗。医药的发展速度实在是太快了,任何政府机构或专家委员会都无法跟上。唯一能跟上这一发展速度的只有开放、信息充分而又有竞争力的市场。这一经验教训既适用于美国,同样也适用于所有正在筹划医疗改革的国家。政府想做却又无法做到的事情,自由的市场可以做到。

  进行医疗改革的正确途径是建立一套灵活的、以市场为导向的医疗体制。在这套体制下,消费者既享有权利也承担义务.而且还能自由地做出选择。如果患者只是被动地接受医疗服务,这样的医疗体制根本就是行不通的。相反,如果患者能充分了解药物质量、医疗费用以及最新的治疗方法,然后再根据这些情况自由选择医疗方案,这样的体制才是可行的。

  当然,医疗改革绝不能单纯只受价格因素的驱动。相反,我们应该寻求新的途径来资助医疗保健事业,使所有的患者都能享受最好的医疗服务。理想的改革方式不仅能使个人和家庭受益,而且还能鼓励医疗创新,使得整个医疗体制的运行效率更高,成效更大,最终使患者获益更多。

  选择怎样的改革路线与我们每个人息息相关。我们正处在一个科学发展的黄金时代,而生物医学又是目前最具探索前景的一个科学领域。我们不仅可以期待找到治愈各种急、慢性疾病的药物,还可以期待研制出各种疗法,帮助人们过上更有意义、更有价值的生活。过去,关节炎和心血管疾病的患者很有可能致残;而现在,新型的药物可以使他们继续活动自如。抗抑郁药和抗精神病药的疗效提高了,能缓解人们精神方面的疾病,使患者在社会上正常、快乐地生活。简单地说,生物医学给我们带来的希望就是,它能使人们更长寿、更健康。

  现在还有待解决的问题就是新药开发的步伐有多快、范围有多广,以及需要多长时间才能让那些有需要的患者从中受益。

  因此,下个世纪制药业所面临的政策环境将会决定生物医学领域是否会出现新一波的突破。改革后的政策环境会保护知识产权吗?会允许市场自由定价吗?会为建立强大的科研基地而提供支持吗?改革后的医疗体制是有助于培养创新意识,还是会抑制创新?这样的医疗体制是为消费者提供更多的信息和选择,还是用苛刻的规则和条例限制他们的信息来源和选择权?对于美国和世界上其它国家来说,关于医疗体制的争论绝没有结束。而对我们所有人来说,医疗体制改革的风险比以往任何时候都要大。

 

分享到

您可能感兴趣的文章